that camera looks like some kind of electrically locked gimp gear

>>53674613

None of these.
Footage from cameras that aren't dash cams are rarely admissible in traffic court. A dash cam's entire job to to record indiscriminately in the event something happens. A sports camera/other cameras are not meant for that, and not only could your motives for installing/using such a camera be called into question, but if your state/area has laws against recording 3rd parties without their permission, you could be counter-sued/fined/thrown in jail for recording someone without their permission, even though it's from inside your vehicle.
Liken it, if you will, to shooting someone who enters your house illegally (in the US) and you've told to leave. In the majority of times, you're in the clear if it was done with a legally obtained, stored, and utilized gun that would be reasonable for such a case. However, if you unload 2 magazines of ammunition into this guy, with your (legally obtained), fully-automatic, collectible WWII submachine gun, theres going to be some debate on what your motive was for thinking such a gun and method was appropriate for home defense, and you might actually go to jail for it.

Tl;Dr: Go buy a real Dash Cam. Don't use any other type of camera. You might get in trouble. Also, your insurance rate might go down if you report buying and installing a dash cam to them.

i use some chink dash cam i bought for $70

it just werks

>>53675369
Don't listen to this idiot.

A video recorded with a mounted iphone is just as valid as an overpriced camera. Roads aren't private places, you can record whatever the fuck you want from inside your vehicle. The idea that recording your ride to work wouldn't be permissible because you're using a "sports camera" over anything else is fucking absurd. Don't waste your money.

>>53675472

>Roads aren't private places, you can record whatever the fuck you want from inside your vehicle.

Incorrect. Any footage that can be used to positively identify an individual, and/or is focused on a place where it can do so, can violate these laws. Otherwise paparazzi could just point high-res video cameras down streets they know stars live on, and capture them all day long, because "they're only recording in a public place". As well, recording and storing information such as License Plates and VINs, both visible from a public area such as the road, is also very illegal. Especially when posted online or used in other mediums.

As such, it could be called into question why you're not using a camera designed and meant for this task, and your video evidence rendered null. As well, once again, if its capturing people's faces, likenesses, vehicle information, and more when you drive, it could be violating state/local laws. Dash cams, because of their distinct usage and motive, skirt this in the same way recording a conversation someone else is having in YOUR home with your phone is illegal, but if your home security system catches it, it's fine. Because your phone had the distinct goal to capture that person and violate their privacy, but a surveillance system has the distinct goal of monitoring your house for invaders.

Using a dedicated app on a phone mounted to your windshield might be alright, but you would have to check that that does not violate state/local laws against mobile device usage in your vehicle. Some areas prohibit everything that isn't hands-free calling, and using a mounted phone camera could violate this law, even though you were not operating it during driving.

>>53675708
>it could be called into question why you're not using a camera designed and meant for this task, and your video evidence rendered null

This is a laughable argument. Please tell me you're year one law school.

>>53675369
>>53675708
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.